IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Sapna Rani Sharma and another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Jaswant Lal since deceased through his Legal Representatives ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by defendants No. 2 and 3 seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra; whereby application dated 09.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of their written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 57 of 2014 titled as Jaswant Lal vs.

General Public and others, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioners as it failed to appreciate that written statement dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) filed by defendant No.2/petitioner No.1 herein does not bear her signatures. It is submitted that therefore, learned Additional District Judge has wrongly recorded in the impugned order that separate written statements had been filed by the petitioners under their signatures. Thus, the impugned order suffers from material factual error and deserves to be set aside.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main ground for rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 given by Ld. Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra is factually incorrect, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. It is further wrongly held that the petitioners want to fill up the lacuna in their case, rather the amendment in the written statements are very much essential. It is submitted that it is further an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is the adopted daughter of respondent No.1/plaintiff and his wife, and she was brought up by them and in the whole academic record of petitioner No.1, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card as well as in Marriage Invitation Cards and in the Ration Card of respondent No.1/plaintiff he has been mentioned as the father of the petitioner No.1. All the ceremonies in the marriage were performed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff as a father.

4. It is submitted that, however, inadvertently, due to mistake of counsel, the said fact could not be mentioned in the written statement. It is contended that therefore, amendment of the written statement is necessitated as it is admitted fact on record that the petitioner No.1 is the adopted daughter of plaintiff. However, this fact was inadvertently not correctly mentioned in the written statement filed by learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the said mistake is required to be rectified for the just and proper adjudication of the case. As such, application for amendment filed by the petitioners ought to have been allowed. In passing the impugned order, learned Additional District Judge also failed to appreciate that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the application for amendment is allowed. It is accordingly prayed that the present Civil Revision be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.

6. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

7. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on dated 17.05.2014; in which the petitioners had filed their respective written statements dated 7.2.2015 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively). The said suit was decreed by learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016. Thereafter, Civil Appeal was filed by the petitioners on 14.12.2016. During the pe